Should Army medevacs be armed?

A contentious debate over arming Army medevac helicopters sparked by the death of a soldier whose wounding in Afghanistan was videotaped by an embedded blogger is spilling into the halls of Congress.

The blogger, Michael Yon, has lobbied fiercely for arming the medevac choppers since his report about Army Spc. Chazray Clark, who was severely wounded Sept. 18 when he stepped on an improvised explosive device while on patrol in Kandahar province. Due in part to the lack of an armed escort for the medevac chopper, it took medics about an hour to get Clark, who lost an arm and both legs in the explosion, back to the hospital at Kandahar Airfield.

Story Continued Below

Yon blamed Clark’s death on Army policies, which require the medevac helicopters to prominently display the Red Cross emblem and be unarmed to conform to rules of the Geneva Conventions. Army commanders also require armed escorts for such helicopters, because Afghan insurgents do not honor the rule that protects the aircraft from hostile fire.

The debate has gotten ugly: In his blog posts, Yon has accused Army officials of lying to Congress. And the Army has dug in, insisting current policy is the best way to save the most lives in combat. Other military bloggers also have harshly criticized Yon for raising the issue.

“This is an issue that has been subjected to considerable review by senior, experienced, combat-tested officers in the medical, aviation and ground combat communities, and [the current policy] reflects the best balance between mission accomplishment and care for the soldiers,” Army spokesman George Wright said. “We’re concerned about this issue because there’s concern being presented to us, but this is not an issue on which we have doubt.”

Still, Yon’s campaign is beginning to get results. Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee who chairs the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, wrote Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week asking for a review of the Army’s policy.

“Any policy commitment that would impede even a single wounded soldier or Marine from receiving medical care in the least amount of time possible is simply unacceptable,” Akin said in a press statement about the letter.

In his letter, Akin told Panetta that he could not “state with certainty whether or not Specialist Clark’s life would have been saved by getting to Kandahar sooner.”

But he said, “We do know that minutes after a battlefield wound are crucial and getting the wounded to proper medical care rapidly is vital.